Disaster Relief Project Final Report

by Helena Titova
Abstract

The report presents the results of a 10 weeks design project for Sparky Aid Designs. The project was
devoted to an aircraft that could be used for disaster relief. To complete a final design of a plane a
number of engineering approaches, methods and means has been used.
All the efforts were made according to the standard steps of the designing process. It enabled the
following results. The wildfire disaster relief scenario has been chosen, as well as the target customer
(local government). After problem definition, design requirements and criteria have been determined. A
plane was planned as relatively not expensive, burn resistant, compact aircraft with low weight and low
fuel consumption. Its main functions are to fight fire and evacuate victims of wildfire, earthquake, flood
or tsunami. The aircraft has two reservoirs and is equipped with an aerial water bucket. Its interior
design includes places for people and their belongings. To provide the best wing and design Zhukovsky
Aerofoil and Wing Deflection Simulators were used. Outside temperature level is controlled
automatically. Financial analysis shows that the project is feasible. The main goals of the project have
been achieved in spite the fact that during the design process at least two trade-offs have been made.

Introduction

Wildfire Disaster Relief includes special operations to stop the fire. Aircrafts are widely used for
delivering water. Aircrafts need to operate at night and poor visibility as well as high temperatures. The
needed recovery efforts can be summarized as delivery of water to fight the fire, to transport equipment
and evacuate victims.
The target customer is a local government of the regions which suffer from extended drought periods
(e.g. in the countries of southern Europe [1]). The stakeholders are emergency services crew, aircrew
and aircraft ground crew. Potential uses of the aircraft can be extended. It could deliver cargo. It also
could be used to water farm crops during drought periods or protect plants from harmful insects. The
main issues the stakeholders currently face are safety, effectiveness, environment protection and cost.

The following design requirements and criteria have been determined

Design requirements
The design shall be an aircraft
The design shall have belly tank, water hopper or a cargo hook together with underslung fire bucket
The design shall have separated water blocks to be used sequentially
The design shall have high tank capacity (not less than 7 gallons)
The design shall operate on land and water
The design shall have GPS
The design shall have automated outside temperature control
The design shall have radio and video connection with a ground crew
The design shall have endurance up to 4 hrs
The design shall have cruise speed of 200 400 mph
The design shall require short runway
The design shall be used for people evacuation
The design shall fly at a height of 400 to 800 ft

Design criteria
1 burn resistance (importance: the aircraft must operate in a proper way and be safe for the crew in
the areas with high temperatures)
2 low weight (the main function is to carry huge amount of water; aircraft weight together with water
weight must not decrease cruise speed and increase fuel consumption significantly)
3 compactness and high maneuverability (it is important for the aircraft to be useful in places with
limited space)
4 manufacture and maintenance costs (there must be a reasonable balance between design
improvements and production expenditures; maintenance costs must be appropriate to use the
aircraft in regions with different paying capacity)
 5 fuel consumption (there are two advantages of low fuel consumption: the first one is about aircraft
weight and the second one refers to maintenance cost)

Table 1 Results of analytical hierarchy process

manufacture
compactness,
burn low and fuel
high Total Weight
resistance weight maintenance consumption
maneuverability
costs
burn resistance
1* 0.33 0.5 3 0.5 5.33 0.15
low weight
3 1 2 2 0.5 8.5 0.26
compactness,
high 2 0.5 1 3 2 8.5 0.26
maneuverability
manufacture
and
maintenance
0.33 0.5 0.33 1 0.33 2.49 0.07
costs
fuel
consumption 2 2 0.5 3 1 8.5 0.26

Total 8.33 4.33 4.33 12 4.33 33.32 1.00

According to the AHP table (Table 1) three criteria have equal weight. It means there is an integrated
criterion which requires complex measurements. If aircraft weight and fuel consumption can be
measured or calculated, compactness and high maneuverability cannot be easily estimated. They might
require a special set of additional criteria and indicators to be developed with the help of experts, e.g.
pilots.

Problem definition as well as design criteria and requirements were determined for a design of an
aircraft which could be used to provide Wildfire Disaster Relief. Its main purpose is delivering water to
the fire-place and victims evacuation.

Background

For the project I have chosen a Disaster Relief Scenario.

A special aircraft may be used by emergency services. It could use water or other environmentally
friendly substances to stop fire. Customer research showed that there is a wide range of existing
designs of firefighting aircrafts: air tactical, fixed wing (aerial tankers), rotor wing (helicopters), military
planes [2-6]. Still there might be a gap in the market. A new design which provides efforts in more than
one disaster relief scenarios might be in demand among local, state and federal agencies. According to
the disaster scenarios there are some different possible missions: a mission for a fire airplane which
requires large payload capacity and long range and mission for evacuation flights. In this case the plane
has to include additional equipment.

A Design Overview

The target customer of the aircraft is a local government of the regions which suffer from extended
drought periods and often risk to have wildfires. The airplane is designed to use water or other
environmentally friendly substances to stop fire. The customer needs a relatively not expensive, burn
resistant, compact aircraft with low weight and low fuel consumption. The stakeholders are disaster
victims, emergency services crew, aircrew and aircraft ground crew.
The unique feature of the airplane is an ability to evacuate people during the fire. Such type of an
aircraft includes a cabin for the crew, a cargo block and a passenger block with seats. The airplane is
equipped with 2 GE-90 engines (Table 2).

Table 2 Airplane parameters

Item Value
Engine Type/Properties:
Engine Type GE-90 (jet)
Number of engines 2
Thrust (kN) 388.8
SFC (mg/N-s) 8.3
Weight (kN) 77.4
Length (cm) 728.7
Max Diameter (cm) 395.2
Design Parameters:
Lift Coefficient 0.7
Drag Coefficient 0.02
Payload Weight (kN) 411
Fuel Weight (kN) 140
Chord Length (m) 2
Span (m) 30
Fuselage Cross-sectional Area(m2) 10
Fuselage Length (m) 30
Glider Starting Altitude (km) 20
Aircraft Performance:
Cruise Speed (m/s) 705.90
Rate of Climb (m/s) 563.06
Take-Off Weight (kN) 920.84
Range (km) 4666.08
Endurance (hrs) 4.01
Fuel capacity (kN) 269
OEW (kN) 381.84

Figure 1 presents a descriptive model of a current design.

Figure 1 Aircraft model*

* The picture has been retrieved from http://fire-truck.ru/pozharnyie-avtomobili/mnogotselevoy-reaktivnyiy-samolet-amfibiya-be-
200-be-200chs.html and processed
Financial analysis

Disaster missions:
Europe
2 Earthquake disasters per year (15 weeks)
12 wildfire disasters per year (1.5 weeks)
Entire usable number of weeks in the year 48
Interest rate = 8%

Lifespan - 63.5 million km

Total fuel costs per year
$3.7m + $3.98m= about 7.68 million per year

OMR and Payload Costs:

Operation, maintenance and repair (OMR)
2 engines ($0.35m/yr x 2)
Pilot and Crew ($0.2m/yr)
Total: $0.9m/yr

Total Payload Costs ($ 1m/yr)

Benefits
Yearly benefits:
Wildfire: 12 x $1.1m= $13.2m
Evacuation2 x $5m x 0.98= $9.8m
Total: $23m/yr
Resale benefit : $3.05m (5% of the initial cost)

Evaluating my project
Lifetime worth (LTW)
$247.4m - $163.3m = $84.1m

Return on investment (ROI)

$84.1m / $61m = 1.38 = 138%
ROI and LTW are positive
The project seems feasible
Calculations are presented in Appendix 1.

As an aircraft for wildfire disaster relief works under high temperatures, the temperature level has to be
automatically controlled. So, the design is equipped with a temperature sensor and an alarm system
(LED RGB).

During the design process at least two trade-offs have been made. Firstly, the weight has been
increased when passenger and cargo blocks had been added. It decreased the aircraft speed and
endurance, but the plane became useful for more than one disaster scenario. The second trade-off was
manufacture cost. It was increased because of the wing structure. A fiberglass spar of an I beam area
shape has been used to meet stress requirements. The main disadvantage of this design was its cost.
At the same time the criterion had higher weight in a decision process, as we needed to cut the weight
of the airplane.

Interior design

The aircraft is designed to provide Wildfire Disaster Relief. Its main purpose is to deliver water to the
fire-place. It also could be used for delivery of cargo and rescue party, evacuating victims as well as
provide medical care. According to the disaster scenarios there are 3 different possible mission profiles.
Firstly, a mission profile for a fire airplane. Its main function is to fight fire. The attributes are large
payload capacity and long range. Secondly, a mission profile for evacuation flights. Such aircraft can be
used in different disaster scenarios: wildfire, earthquake, flood or tsunami. In this case aircraft interior
design has to include places for people and their belongings. Thirdly, it is a profile for an air medical
service aircraft. It is used for a number of disaster scenarios as well as for rescue missions when victims
need emergency medical aid. It requires special medical equipment.

Payload design options (cargo and/or passengers)

Each of three presented missions forms their specific purpose and requirements. Payload data is
presented in Appendix 2 Table 1.

Fire airplane (Design A)

This type of an aircraft includes a cabin for the crew, two separated tanks for water and a mechanical
controlling block which includes a gate opening and closing mechanism and pumps.

Evacuation aircraft (Design B)

Such type of an aircraft should include a cabin for the crew, cargo block and passenger block with
seats.

Air medical service aircraft (Design C)

This kind of an aircraft needs to add medical crew and equipment.

Decision matrix application shows (Table 3) that Design Bwith the score 3.93 seems to be the best
according to chosen criteria. As the initial design task was focused on a fire airplane all the criteria are
also oriented towards the design which is able to provide effective operation during aerial firefighting:
burn resistance, low weight, compactness, and low fuel consumption. Comparing with the Design A it
may be used in more than one type of natural disaster. Design C will have higher weight which is crucial
and higher manufacturing cost.

Table 3 Decision matrix

*Rating: 1 - does not meet criteria in any way; 2 - can sometimes meet the criteria; 3 - meets criteria; 4
- meets criteria well; 5 - meets criteria perfectly.

Wing design

While designing a wing shape for the aircraft, which provides wildfire disaster relief, airfoil geometry was
considered. One of the customers requirements was endurance up to 4 hours. The fuel tanks were
designed inside the wings. So, the wing needed enough space for fuel. In this respect it was necessary
to identify the relationships between the chord length and lift coefficient, drag coefficient, the lift and
drag ratio.
 Experiment 1 Chord Length - Lift
Coefficient
y = -0,012x3 + 0,108x2 - 0,349x + 1,257
0,940
Lift Coefficient

0,920
0,900
0,880
0,860
0,840
1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Chord, m

a
Experiment 2 Chord Length - Drag
Coefficient
y = 0,009x + 0,027
0,060
Drag Coefficient

0,050
0,040
0,030
0,020
0,010
0,000
1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Chord, m

Experiment 3 Chord Length - Lift and Drag

Ratio
y = 28,65x-0,55

25,000
Lift and drag ratio

20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0,000
1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Chord, m

Figure 2 Plots of Experimental results for Experiments 1-3:

a is Experiment 1 Chord Length - Lift Coefficient
b is Experiment 2 Chord Length - Drag Coefficient
c is Experiment 3 Chord Length - Lift and Drag Ratio
Wing Simulator helped to see how the chord length affects the way that the airfoil looks and how output
parameters change. When the chord length is maximum and equates 3 m, the characteristics of the
wing are 0.851 Lift Coefficient , 0.055 Drag Coefficient and 15.367 Lift and Drag Ratio. When the chord
length is minimum and equates 1.5 m, the characteristics change to 0.935 Lift Coefficient (much more,
comparing with the maximum cord length), 0.041 Drag Coefficient (being less, comparing with the
maximum chord length) and 22.770 Lift and Drag Ratio (being more, comparing with the maximum
chord length). The results show that the less the chord length is, the more lift coefficient is and the less
drag coefficient is.
To provide the best wing design, three different wing designs have been created and analyzed. To
model the wing design Zhukovsky Aerofoil and Wing Deflection Simulators were used. All the tested
designs applied the same wing shape, which has optimum values for lift coefficient, drag coefficient and
the lift and drag ratio. The working parameters are presented in the Appendix 3 Table 1.
Wing designs, which have been tested, were different by the wing shapes. Wing Design A had a
minimum chord length=1.5 m, Design B had a chord length= 2m and Design C applied a chord of 3m.
The rest of the inputs were the same for three designs: camber=0.04, maximum thickness=0.16, angle
of attack=4 and span=30m.
Approximate max takeoff weight of the airplane was 8,000 lbs which equates 36 kN.
Each wing design had its own spar design. Design A had an aluminum spar. Its area shape was a box
with height=0.160m, width= 0.250m and thickness 0.050m. The volume of the material, which was used
to produce the spar, was 0.930 m3. Design B (Fig. 3) employed a fiberglass spar of an I-beam area
shape. The height of an I-beam was 0.190m, the width was 0.250m and the thickness was 0.050m. The
cross-sectional area was 0.02950m2, so, the volume of fiberglass was 0.885 m3. Design C was
equipped with a rectangle steel spar. Its height was 0.180m, width was 0.250m and cross-sectional area
was 0.04500m2. The volume of the material used in the spar was 1,350 m3.

Figure 3 Picture of wing and spar designs

Application of the decision matrix approach gives an opportunity to choose the best spar design
considering the score for each design. Design B (with 4.28 score) wins. It was the base for
recommendations as for the spar design. For the wing shape, which was designed, a fiberglass spar of
an I beam area shape was used to meet stress requirements. The main disadvantage of this design
was its cost.

Automation

In designing an aircraft for wildfire disaster relief, high temperatures, which can occur during fire fighting,
have been considered. As a high temperature can damage the aircraft and be dangerous for the crew,
the pilot has to control it permanently. The process of outside temperature control has bean automated.
So, the outside temperature was an input. A temperature sensors and LED were utilized. Temperature
range was divided into three zones: normal (safe), critical and dangerous. When the temperature is at
normal level, a green light is on. When the temperature is in critical zone, a red light blinks attracting
pilots attention. If a dangerous limit is exceeded, a red light turns on. The pilot must leave a dangerous
area when the temperature is in critical or dangerous zones. It is a Sunny day scenario. Several
temperature sensors were used in different parts of the aircraft. Rainy day scenario was, when the
aircraft was under dangerous temperature and the pilot did not leave the area. If the aircraft stayed in a
dangerous area for a definite period (up to 15 minutes), an alarm and a cooling system would turn on.
And the pilot or a crew member moved the aircraft away.

Use Case Diagram

Watch
Lights Increase
lights temperature
included
included included

Pilot Fire
Leave Alarm

extended included
Overheats
Cooling
system extended
Aircraft
Crew
member

included Temperature
Measure Check
temperature lights,
cooling
Sensors system
Maintenance

The system had a number of users. The main users were a pilot and crew members who watch lights
and move the aircraft away from the dangerous area (the pilot in a Sunny day scenario, the pilot or the
crew member in a Rainy day scenario). Other users were sensors which measure the outside
temperature, fire which increases the temperature, aircraft which overheats and causes the cooling
system to be turned on (Rainy day scenario) and maintenance team which checks all the sensors and
a cooling system.

Sequence Diagram

Pilot LED T sensors Alarm Cooling system

watches
sends
sends
signals data
data
turns on

signals

Sequence diagram starts with a pilot and shows the Sunny day scenario. Pilot watches LED, which
gets data from the temperature sensors. When alarm turns on pilot leaves the dangerous area. In a
Rainy day scenario, if the pilot does not leave a dangerous area and the temperature sensors go on
sending information about dangerous temperature, a cooling system turns on.

Activity Diagram

Cooling
Measure system
temperature turns on
NO

Temperature in NO Red light Wait

a safe zone blinks =15 min?
YES
YES
Green light Pilot
is on leaves

Aircraft
fights the
fire

According to the Activity Diagram there are three kinds of final behavior. Firstly, if outside temperature is
in a safe zone, an aircraft goes on fire fighting. Secondly, if the temperature is in a critical zone, red light
blinks and the pilot reacts an alarm leaving the dangerous area. Thirdly, if the temperature rises up to a
dangerous point and the pilot does not leave a dangerous area, in 15 minutes a cooling system turns
on.

Description of Automated Feature

An aircraft for wildfire disaster relief works under high temperatures. As it can be dangerous for the
aircraft and the crew, the temperature level has to be automatically controlled permanently and the pilot
has to be informed about it by special signals. Temperature range can be divided into two zones: safe
(up to 31C), and dangerous (higher than 32C). The pilot switches the system and a green light is on.
In 2 seconds the temperature sensor starts registering the temperature. The system informs the pilot
with a blue light about the safe temperatures. If the sensor registers the temperatures higher than 32 C,
the red light burns. In this respect the circuit will include a switch, a temperature sensor and an LED
RGB.
 a b
Figure 4 Circuit diagram:
a at the moment when the system is being started; b at the moment when the temperatures are safe

The circuit includes a switch and a temperature sensor. They are input sensors. Output sensors are
temperature sensor and LED RGB.
Arduino Code is presented in Appendix 4

The circuit is expected to work in the following way. When the switch is on, the green light is on. In 2
seconds the temperature sensor starts and registers the outside temperature. If the temperature
changes, other lights are on (the blue one, when the temperature is not higher than 31 C, and the red
one, when the temperature is equal or higher than 32 C). The system informs the pilot with the
messages Danger or Safe.

Testing

FAT procedure has been prepared for the project. In experimental part, it dealt with an LED RGB for
automated outside temperature control system. The test is presented in Appendix 5.
The purpose of the test was to check if the LED RGB is ready to work. Experimental tests are rather
important part of the design process as they help to identify, localize and eliminate the faults on time.

Conclusions

The final design of an aircraft for the wildfire disaster relief scenario meets the customer requirements. It
can be used for firefighting and evacuation of victims of wildfire, earthquake, flood or tsunami. It is
relatively not expensive, burn resistant and compact. It has with low weight and low fuel consumption. It
is equipped with the systems for water intake, automated outside temperature control, places for people
and their belongings. This design is apart from other designs due to its ability to be used in more than
one disaster relief scenarios.

Recommendations

In spite of the fact that the project includes a number of advantages it requires more time.
Firstly, it needs a deeper customer research to analyze all the existing designs and correlate
their features with the customer needs and wants. Secondly, interior decisions required more
precise calculations of payloads and all connected parameters. Thirdly, wing shape and spar
design must be based on deep knowledge of the subject. Next, there are some gaps in
automation issues. In reality the system does not work in a proper way because of the mistakes in the
code. The designer should be very careful with the order of the operations, inputs and outputs. Finally,
testing procedures needed more time as well. One more weak point of the project is 3D models which
are not realized. That is why, I believe, engineering is a team effort. The team of experts from different
fields is much more effective than one highly skilled engineer.
Summary of what I learned from this project

The project became a good base for my future development. It gave an opportunity to realize what a
design process is, its stages, main approaches, techniques and methods. The fundamentals of
generating new ideas, decision making process, modeling, testing, etc. together with all the resources
and applications are absolutely necessary for a future engineer. One more extra skill, which I learned
from the course, is time management. Clear schedule, strict deadlines and effective organization made
me work regularly. Finally, I need to highlight A day in a life videos which are strongly motivating and
informative.

Resources
1. http://www.euronews.com/2017/08/15/how-europe-s-wildfires-have-more-than-trebled-in-2017
2. http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/AviationGuide_FINAL_web.pdf
3. https://books.google.com.ua/books?isbn=1412971012
4. https://www.standards.govt.nz/assets/Developing-Standards/Standard-for-Use-of-Aircraft-at-Wilfires-
draft-v7.pdf
5. https://books.google.com.ua/books?isbn=1590339932
6. http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.13/after-a-record-setting-wildfire-a-washington-county-prepares-for-the-
next-one/the-cost-benefit-analysis-of-aerial-firefighting
 Appendices
Appendix 1 Financial analysis
Dual engine
Operational empty weight (OEW) = 381.84 kN
Range = 4,666.08 km
Endurance = 4.01 hours
Fuel capacity = 269 kN
Initial cost = 381.84/6.3=$61m

Europe
2 Earthquake disasters per year (15 weeks)
12 wildfire disasters per year (1.5 weeks)
Entire usable number of weeks in the year 48
Interest rate = 8%

Wildfire
4 flight time + 3 hours ground time
2 trips per day (2 x 4666 km)
(4666 km/trip)(2 trips/day)(7days/wk)(18 wks/yr)=1,175,832 km/yr

Lifespan - 63.5 million km

Evacuation
1000 km round trip
6 evacuations/day
(1000km/evac)(6evacs/day)(7days/wk)(30wks/yr)=1,260,000 km/yr

Total distance per year: 1.20m+ 1.26m=2.46m km

(63.5 million km)/(2.46 million km per yr)= about 25 years

Fuel cost per year

Wildfire
(18 wks/yr)(7d/wk)(2trips/d)(269 kN)($54.76/kN)=$3.7 million/yr
Evacuation
(30 wks/yr)(7days/wk)(6evacs/day)(1000 km/trip)/ (4666 km/tank)(269 kN)($54.76 KN)=$3.98
million/year

Total fuel costs per year

$3.7m + $3.98m= about 7.68 million per year

OMR and Payload Costs

Operation, maintenance and repair (OMR)
2 engines ($0.35m/yr x 2)
Pilot and Crew ($0.2m/yr)
Total: $0.9m/yr

Total Payload Costs ($ 1m/yr)

Benefits
Yearly benefits:
Wildfire: 12 x $1.1m= $13.2m
Evacuation2 x $5m x 0.98= $9.8m
Total: $23m/yr
Resale benefit : $3.3m (5% of the initial cost) $3.05m

Calculating LTW and ROI

Present value of all costs:

(1 + 0.08)25 1
61m + 1m + 0.9m + 7.68m = $163.3
0.08(1 + 0.08)25

Present value of all benefits:

(1 + 0.08)25 1 3.05
23 25
+ = $247.4
0.08(1 + 0.08) (1 + 0.08)25
Evaluating my project
Lifetime worth (LTW)
$247.4m - $163.3m = $84.1m

Return on investment (ROI)

$84.1m / $61m = 1.38 = 138%

Appendix 2 Table 1 Payload data

Object Quantity Estimated Estimated Weight
Dimensions (lbs)
Fire airplane
Adult Man (crew) 3 7.5 feet wide by 600
6 feet tall
FireRetardant 5,000 60,000
Ground water 10,000 4.5 feet wide by 4.5 80,000
gallons feet tall by 21 feet
long
Water Pump 1 3 feet long by 2.3 311
feet wide by 2.7 tall
Aerial Water Bucket 1 8 feet long by 2 100 (emptyweight)
feet wide by 2 feet
tall (when empty
and folded), 8 feet
by 8 feet by 8 feet
when filled
PlaneSeat 3 4.5 feet wide by 6 240
feet long by 4 feet
tall
Total 1,251
(emptyweight)
Evacuation aircraft
Adult Man (crew) 4 8 feet wide by 6 800
feet tall
Adult Man (victim) 7 17,5 feet wide by 1,400
6 feet tall
Adult Woman 7 14 feet wide by 6 1,050
feet tall
Child 6 1 feet wide by 4 360
feet tall
CablePulleySystem 1 4 feet wide by 4 1,000
feet long
RescueBasket 1 2 feet wide by 4 40
feet long by 4 feet
tall
EEGMonitorMachine 1 width: 24 in. depth: 220
32.5 in height
45.25 in
PlaneSeat 25 37.5 feet wide by 2,000
50 feet long by 4
feet tall
DrinkingWater 1 1 foot wide by 2 45 lbs/5 gallon
feet tall by 1 foot
long
Food/water 'bundle' 1 4 feet wide by 4 900
feet long by 4 feet
tall
EmergencyPreparednessKit 1 1 foot wide by 1.5 10
feet tall
FirstAidKit 3 3 feet wide by 3 9
feet long
Total 7,834
Air medical service aircraft
Adult Man (crew) 3 7.5 feet wide by 600
6 feet tall
Adult Man (medical crew) 4 8 feet wide by 6 800
feet tall
Adult Man (victim) 1 2.5 feet wide by 200
6 feet tall
PlaneSeat 3 4.5 feet wide by 6 240
feet long by 4 feet
tall
Portable Emergency Oxygen 1 .5 feet wide by 1 5
Mask and Tank foot tall
DrinkingWater 1 1 foot wide by 2 45 lbs/5 gallon
feet tall by 1 foot
long
Medical equipment 1 2 feet wide by 2.4 440
Operating Table feet tall by 6.5 foot
(Multifunction, long
electric/hydraulic driven)
Anesthesia trolley 1 4 feet wide by 2 700
(anesthesia machine with feet tall by 5 foot
ventilator and monitor) long
SuctionPump
VentilatorICU
Operatinginstrumentset 1 3.1 feet wide by 3.2 30
feet tall by 2 foot
long
Total 3,060
Appendix 3 Table 1 Parameters of Wing Designs

Input Outputs
Design Drag Lift and Drag
Chord, m Lift Coefficient
Coefficient Ratio
Design A 1.5 0.77 0.02 46.75
Design B 2 0.69 0.02 40.28
Design C 3 0.61 0.02 32.38

Appendix 4 Arduino Code

int switchPin = 2; // the switch is connected to Pin 2 of the Arduino
int temperatureON = 3; // the temperature sensor is connected to Pin 3
int led_green = 5; // the green LED is connected to Pin 5 of the Arduino
int switchState = 0; // initialize the dummy variable for the switch state
int temperaturePin = A0; // the temperature sensor is connected to Pin A0
int led_blue = 6; // the blue LED is connected to Pin 6 of the Arduino
int led_red = 4; // the red LED is connected to Pin 4 of the Arduino
float reading = 0; // initialize the dummy variable for the temperature
float voltage = 0; // initialize the voltage variable
float degreeC = 0; // initialize the degree C

void setup()
{
pinMode(led_green, OUTPUT); // set up the green LED as OUTPUT
pinMode(switchPin, INPUT); // set up the switch as INPUT
pinMode(temperaturePin, INPUT); // set up the temperature sensor as INPUT
pinMode(temperatureON, OUTPUT); // set up the temperature sensor as OUTPUT
pinMode(led_blue, OUTPUT); // set up the blue LED as OUTPUT
pinMode(led_red, OUTPUT); // set up the red LED as OUTPUT

Serial.begin(9600);

void loop()
{
// checking the condition that the switch is on/off
switchState = digitalRead(switchPin);
if(switchState == LOW){
digitalWrite(temperatureON, LOW);
digitalWrite(led_red, LOW);
digitalWrite(led_green, LOW);
digitalWrite(led_blue, LOW);
}
else {
digitalWrite(led_green, HIGH); // green light is on
digitalWrite(led_red, LOW);
digitalWrite(led_blue, LOW);
delay(1000); // wait 2 seconds
digitalWrite(temperatureON, HIGH); // the temperature sensor is on
}

reading = analogRead(A0);
//Serial.println(reading);
voltage = reading*5/1024;
// Serial.println(voltage);
degreeC = ((voltage-.5)*100);
// Serial.println(degreeC);

if(degreeC >= 32){

digitalWrite(led_red, HIGH); // red light is on
digitalWrite(led_green, LOW);
digitalWrite(led_blue, LOW);
Serial.println("Danger");
}
else {
digitalWrite(led_blue, HIGH); // blue light is on
digitalWrite(led_red, LOW);
digitalWrite(led_green, LOW);
Serial.println("Safe");
}

Appendix 5 FAT Procedure

Test Title: Testing for the LED RGB readiness

Scope: This test verifies that the LED RGB in a system of outside temperature control is ready to work.
The following requirements are included in this procedure:
1. The LED RGB shall be working.

Name of Tester: Olena Titova Date of Test: 11/25/17

Prerequisites:
The aircraft must be operating.

Test Procedure:
Step Instructions Expected Outcome Requirement Pass/Fail
1 Press the ON button at Green light is on. Req #1
the tool panel Green light on?
Y/N
2 Increase the Blue light is on. Req #1
temperature up to 25C Blue light on?
Y/N
3 Blue light is on. Red light is on. Req #1
Red light on?
Y/N